text:
Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive2
- 1 encyclopædiadramatica
- 2 International page blank day?
- 3 Templates
- 4 On my summer holiday I ...
- 5 The history of everything
- 6 Question
- 7 Best of the Best?
- 8 My Chest Hurts
- 9 Er, how to edit this page?
- 10 Meet 'n Stuff
- 11 Unsysopping
- 12 Who Dunnit?
- 13 Report a problem
- 14 Gyugy
- 15 Unified chat
- 16 Hockeyzooka?
- 17 Hey guys
- 18 User banned for 24 years
- 19 Massive influx?
- 20 Googlesque Main_Page
- 21 Firefox
Has anyone else stumbled across (or indeed is a member of) this lot (ED). They seem to be reasonably similar (although maybe a bit more "Agressive") in style to us. I've requested they be added to the Interwiki Map so we can easily link to them if wanted, given the lack (as far as I could see) of any explicit License beyond Their General Disclaimer page] and "all contributions to Encyclopedia Dramatica are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License" on the edit page I don't know if we could (if we should is a diffrent matter) copy/spork their stuff.--Elvis 15:35, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well, they are far more crass and less sophisticated than we are. At the same time, I think it would be an excellent place to point some of our users who don't fit our style. From the 10 minutes of browsing I did, I didn't see a lot of value to us there. They are a clearly stated satire/shock/horror site, where we try to hide the fact that we're doing the same. To mix cultural metaphors, they're Mad TV and we're early Monty Python sketches. Both have their place, but aren't really mixable. --Famine 17:28, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've been to the site a few times. I think the television metaphor is apt: Encyclopediadramatica, from what I've seen, is a more over-the-top site, whereas Uncyclopedia (in its best articles, anyway) is more subtle and usually hangs on to some semblance of reality. I can see how people might find ED humorous, but it's not my cuppa. --Rcmurphy 17:54, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Wow. Uncyc just got called subtle. --Sophia 23:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I did say in the best articles. In the others, well, let's not speak of them. --Rcmurphy 03:09, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I think that a better analogy would be we are to platinum what ED is to hamster poo. --Savethemooses 22:01, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this in the bath and came up they are Johnny Rotten to our Noel Coward (or maybe their Young Ones to our News Quiz for UK readers). --Elvis 20:00, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
They're definately a lot smaller, and I agree their style is less sofisticated, but because they're smaller, they've got a more specific style. Sometimes just grab stuff from the net though (stuff that's been seen a million times before). Whereas we're usually creating new lore, new stories, new images, new myths etc etc. They do seem to have a lot less garabage than we have, but he only reason we get more crap is because we're bigger. --TheLibrarian 23:10, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Encyclopædia Dramatica seems to have a far more narrowly-defined stated mission than Uncyclopedia: primarily mocking individual users of various Intarweb sites (as gay, fat and the like) or parodying the sites themselves. See also: teen angst. --Carlb 14:06, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- ED:Main Page due to Angela's usualy effiency it has now been added as interwiki, I may even knock up a {{wikipedia}} like {{encyclopediadramatica}} template --Elvis 10:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Part of the reason they have some much less garbage may be because they are so heavy with the Ban Stick with over over 150 users out of less than 1.5K users whereas we have like 5 (registered) users banned out of 2.5K (registered) users, dunno if thats nesecarily an argument for us to swing the stick a bit harder however. --Elvis 01:47, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I believe you may have missed the "You have to login to edit pages." bit. I'd put some solid Dineros on the fact that that cuts down on the garbage big time. While it's not really the wiki way, I lean towards it, as it allows you to get to know people better. IPs are hard to remember and can change - a name + a history is a lot less forgettable. --Famine 03:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- No I didn't miss it, interestingly even with anon edits we still have less bans (IP and User bans), their admins are definetly more abitary though, I got told off for using a interwiki link that pointed to the wikipedia page about the liscence they were using, in talk space as well! (makes you wonder why they don't remove the interwiki if it annoys them so)--Elvis 03:21, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
International page blank day?
Is today international page blank day? I've had a field day reverting vandalism today. :( Hooloovoo 19:01, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Damnit, I hate it when that happens. --22.214.171.124 23:31, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, seems to be mostly international pages that I've been reverting today - at least for blanking. :( --Carlb 23:45, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
What's with the morons who blank pages that were stupid to begin with? Is there a worse way to be banned than to be caught blanking something like To? If I was going to blank something, I'd at least make it a major page. I mean, seriously. Learn how to vandalize effectively, you idiot blankers. --Rcmurphy 05:35, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I agree, rc. At least if you're gonna blank soemthing, go for the gusto and blank the templates or main page. Btw, thanks much for the reversion help, hoo. Make sure you let us know the IPs as soon as possible, seeing as you can't block peepz and looking through a whole day's worth of entries is as fun as massaging your eyes with tile grout.--Flammable 05:38, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Humm...I'm wondering if someone has been/is amazing enough to come up with a %byte change page, which (ignoring new and deleted pages) lists pages with the greatest % change in byte size. That should easily pick up blanked pages, as they would be in the "99.999% smaller" category. At the same time, seeing something grow by 2000% might also mean it needs a look at. --Famine 13:49, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Barring that, Special:Shortpages shows blanked pages as zero bytes, so you can catch them (as long as they haven't been edited since the blanking) that way. It's also a good way to find worthless one-liners. --Rcmurphy 14:07, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I must admit to using that page for Undictonary candidates/crappy one liners hunting.--Elvis 14:54, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Barring that, Special:Shortpages shows blanked pages as zero bytes, so you can catch them (as long as they haven't been edited since the blanking) that way. It's also a good way to find worthless one-liners. --Rcmurphy 14:07, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Cheers for the heads up guys/gals, I'll head straight for the Ban Patrol next time around. And it was good fun to see today's front page assaulted as the International Page Blank Day, lol. I'll be hanging around here for quite a while longer (in moderation for the next few days as I finish some PHP projects.) On the % change page (good thinking), I'd wait until the contents of MW 1.5 have settled some, there might be important API feature/changes? From what I hear the roundup to 1.5 @ WC isn't that far away. :P Hooloovoo 17:41, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to make a version of Special:Shortpages that doesn't show pages beginning with "Undictionary:" or "Wilde:" (and possibly "Page" and "Zork" as well)? --EvilZak 18:52, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Z, I'd suggest writing a modification that will allow namespace selection on these special pages? May be even more useful... maybe let the user select default ones in their profile? Hooloovoo 19:09, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sorted out templates a bit (especially many stubs over there), Uncyclopedia:Templates. Templates redirects there, it had no content but two funny templates anyway. Feel free to add more. - Guest 15:13, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent. I commend your organizational skills. --Rcmurphy 18:14, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- You rock. Don't forget to add Jesii to the template list, too. --Flammable 18:15, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Every known Uncyclopedia template has been added except for the Demystifying Depression navbar (there's no use, it might as well kill itself *sob* nothing links there, goodbye cruel world), Hyad (part of an individual user talk page - why is this a template at all?) Endless/Endless2 (a failed experiment at creating an endless loop of self-including recursive templates) and JWSchmidt/jwschmidt/wtf (duplicates, could well also be a n00b experiment). Huff the lot of these? (question has since been moved to VFD--Carlb 21:13, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Templates don't hurt anyone
OK, but when was the last time you have personally been hurt by a template? What has a template ever done to you! Templates don't huff people. People with templates huff people. Think about that.
Also a n00b experiment is valid in new science. Using new math combined with the principles of the Slim Shady Algorithm, a n00b is free to experiment within the bounds of quantum mechanics and accordance with the single law of modern physics: Don't break any test tubes. This is how Clinjas, MS Paint, and 2003 UB313 were discovered. The most promising n00b experiment lead to the discovery of the Template:End of the Internet before it was revealed only to be a redirect to Template:Template. (Both of which have since fallen into a Fry Hole.) -Hyad 07:16, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
On my summer holiday I ...
Between the 8th and 19th of August, I shall be work-free. Anyone care to nominate me for temporary sysop status during that period so I can help out at the farm? --IMBJR 11:24, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Nominated--Elvis 11:57, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- For --Rcmurphy 18:13, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- For --Sophia 23:34, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- For --PantsMacKenzie 12:56, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- For --Rcmurphy 18:13, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Fart --Savethemooses 21:59, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Whee! Unless anyone has any major objections, I'm gonna sysop IMBJR. Welcome to the team? --PantsMacKenzie 18:07, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Ooo, earlier than expected, but I shall do my best to keep the crows of the corn and not worry the sheep. --IMBJR 19:07, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The history of everything
I created the history of everything. (Well, not me, Bill Gates, but enough about him) Anyway, i think this will be a great page to build the "lore" of Uncyclopedia. I noticed a lot of articles are about Oprah trying to take over the world and they all seem to be consistent, so why not write a brief history of everything? Check out her page and the United States Presidents for the whole story. -Hyad 07:20, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I like the idea of an article that ties together some of the major themes of Uncyclopedia, as long as it's not too restrictive. After all, in this place, history can change, and it frequently does. --Rcmurphy 03:56, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Oprah's articles are consistent? Good news, because they were listed as the biggest inconsistency evah in Uncyclopedia:About. Maybe a global Timeline of Uncyclopedia or something like that could keep events on track? - Guest 05:44, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
To maintain existing continuity, I decided to declare 1001 AD as 0 AC (After Cheese), because only the latter dating system was used for Oscar Wilde and it had to be somehow connected to the BC system (because 2006 had an event related to Wilde). I chose to have Byron's death as the linking event. You can delete references to my BNR system if you consider it lame, I won't object. - Guest 13:32, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if that is the case, you can head over to the After Cheese page, and click the "what links here" bit in the toolbox, and fix all my broken math. ;) I love the system, but I approach consistency like I approach starving lions - in the opposite direction, rapidly. And I made A.C. redirect to After Cheese, so you can check everything that links there too. Aren't I flipping helpful? God, I should be personal assistant or something... --Famine 01:26, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. My Internet connection isn't cheap, so I can't fight every single inconsistency. At least I try to remove major ones when I see them, such as with the foundation of Microsoft by Benny Hill (yes, I hate it when, without any explanation, people make drastic changes before being born). I'm afraid to even try to sort out Star Wars, because it's all one big inconsistency. - Guest 05:44, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'm with Famine. To me, uncyclopedia doesn't seem like the place for consistancy. If we're (forgive the term "we" here) going to be consistant, it should atleats be funny, so the scale shouldn't be like A.D. but more like the Richter Scale. Something that goes backwards, forwards, uses logs. --TheLibrarian 09:21, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to originate After Cheese temporally at the point the beatitude "Blessed are the cheesemakers for they shall inherit the earth" was first uttered by Jesus in Life of Bwian, which would put it very close to (but after) 0 A.D. --Carlb 21:19, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Well, BC and AD stand for Before Counting and After Digits, they're not required to correspond to the real BC and AD (and the "present" in Uncyclopedia is by all means not 2005). I agree that using ridiculous dating systems (such as AC) is preferred, but at least they need to correspond to BC somehow.
- As for inconsistency, maybe across articles it's tolerable, but in one article it seems awkward. I edited George W. Bush for that very reason: it said he was President in 2000-2044, while everywhere else 2008 was written instead of 2044. - Guest 09:42, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I found this page: The Official List of the Best Things in Existence that is a sort-of summary like the history of everything. However, I wanted to create a page with links to popular uncyclopedia pages for people just joining the uncyclopedia. From there they can read a brief history of things on the uncyclopedia without having to visit every single page. I mean I don't have time to go to every page of each of the United States Presidents. Not to mention, United States Vice Presidents, United Spades Presidents, Popes, and many Jesi (or is it Jesuses?): Jesus, Jesus Christ, Supply-side Jesus, Jesus H. Christ, Cyborg Jesus, Dark Jesus, Stupid Jésus, and Ultra Jesus. I want to emphasize that this page should be both short and comprehensive so that it is easy to read and actually finish reading. We could put up a longer page, like Timeline of Uncyclopedia or the whole history of everything. But for now I think the emphasis should be on actual content. While User:Guest points out that much of Oprah's references are inconsistent, others however are consistent. So we can the just include the stuff that is consistent and forget the rest. -Hyad 20:12, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Admins, how did you become admins? Did you found this site, or did you just feed the kangaroo?--Cheeseboi 20:31, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I beat Sephiroth with a lvl 1 Tifa. Or something --Nytrospawn 20:40, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- As I recall I said if anyone was stupid enough to offer me adminship, I'd be stupid enough to accept. (Oh and we had a lot of flame wars, vandals and QuickVFD to deal with and the existing admins were drowing (to mix a metaphor) under the load).--Elvis 20:44, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sophia bestows adminship on precious few, and her reasons are unknowable to those outside her inner circle. --Rcmurphy 20:53, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I became an Admin by submitting the greatest articles in the history of the world. Quite frankly, I'm a comedic genius. Although really using that as criteria for admin-ing is like electing Tom Cruise as president because you liked him "Top Gun". --Savethemooses 21:51, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I kicked the other admin's asses in Doom2 deathmatch. Level 1, DM 2.0 rules, Hardcore mode, no monsters, weapons stay, no item respawn, frag limit 50. --Famine 13:29, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That's only because you kept spawn-camping. L4m3x0r n00b!! --PantsMacKenzie 14:21, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- At least he didn't win by Tank Rushing!!!!--Elvis 14:30, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Hey - there are only 6 spawn points in the level! And you know where they are. Besides, the "silent BFG" is a legitemate tactic. --Famine 15:03, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That's only because you kept spawn-camping. L4m3x0r n00b!! --PantsMacKenzie 14:21, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. So, basically, you don't really know? --Cheeseboi 14:00, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, you have someone nominate you or nominate yourself here, and then people vote on it. If there seems to be consensus, then you're in. If some big admin (like me and chronarion) or Sophia herself decides to let you in, then you're in. If there's no consensus, or if some big admin (like me and chronarion) decides to veto you for good reasons, then you're not in. --stillwaters/Talk 20:56, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Generally, if you're "visible" for awhile, it helps. Comment on things, write stuff, edit stuff, revert pages when people vandalize or blank them, things like that. A big part of a wiki is communication - help facilitate that, and you stand a chance of being tapped to do that with a more impressive title. --Famine 01:32, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That or give Chron a Klondike bar. People will do anything for one of those bad boys. --Metaphysical 12:56, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- The Sophia says: Be a good citizen, and then once you've been a good citizen for a good amount of time, beg to have someone nominate you. Either that, or my address for shipping a Klondike bar is... --Sophia 23:35, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Best of the Best?
At some point we should have a special feature thing. Like at some sort of anniversary of the site, or maybe for no reason. We could have a massive vote on the top 25 or whatever Uncyclopedia articles of all time. Heck, we could even make a book, how cool would that be? I know that with the constantly changing nature of the articles that that would be kind of hard to throw together, but we could decide on the best version of the featured articles. Any thoughts on this random idea? --Savethemooses 19:15, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I think...Hey look, a puppy! Let's kick it! --Famine 01:36, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well, since I'd already pasted this link on this page once, I figured I'd just keep scrolling down...
But really, a "sysop's pick" would probably be a nice little page to have. I dunno if it should be separate from the page being discussed above, that being a "ye old quickee guide to uncyclopedia" sort of page for n00bs. --Famine 20:27, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Truth. But a vote of sysops or whatev fo' teh best pagez would be uber-h4x. --Savethemooses 21:58, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
My Chest Hurts
I had Mc'Donald's for lunch today. Now my chest hurts and i feel all throw-upy and stuff. I figured maybe some one wanted to know. Know any way we can turn this into a game? --Dave 17:16, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Fish filet sandwich, eh? For my part, I had Raising Cain's and I feel fine, though I did get a cupful of apparently undiluted fruit punch syrup. --Rcmurphy 18:48, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- If you want a tip, never, EVER, eat steak,egg and cheese sandwich. Ever.--Nytrospawn 17:01, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I once got high off McDonald's, I got all light headed and dizzy. It wasn't a pleasant high, I can tell you that.--TheLibrarian 12:29, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Er, how to edit this page?
Only forum for this I guess- for Jebus, my page I'm making, I don't think there's a way on this site to put pictures on the side of the page and then put the text down lower below those (b/c the side pics tell the story until the next paragraph from 'Ministry' to 'Final Week')? Or better yet what if you could move the pics into the center of the screen side by side so it would look like Highlights magazine, which is what I'm parodying, and so it reads well. Impossible, huh? And what about making bigger picture boxes?
- If you know HTML you can use HTML tables to achieve what you want, alternativly Wikipedias HUGE edit help page is good for that sort of thing, if you can find me a piccy of highlights magazine I can havea go.--Elvis 07:42, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to take a look at Greatest Inventions as an example of an article which currently uses tables to position images next to the corresponding text. --Carlb 15:35, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- You can change the size of image boxes by adding |#px to the image tag. The # is the number of pixels you want the image's width to be. --Rcmurphy 15:51, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Meet 'n Stuff
This might be a completely stupid idea, but... I'm interested in meeting people from Uncyclopedia. If people are interested and don't think me to be braindead... maybe we can organize a meeting. There'll be food and stuff. Like, at an all you can eat place. Mmm. I realize that people might not be interested in this. but hey, it's summer, I'm bored. If people respond, we'll try and see if we're in geographically convenient places. --PantsMacKenzie 19:04, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- You want to meat total strangers? That's a bit odd... --Savethemooses 20:59, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'll bring the white van and the candy!!! I love kids...er, what are we doing? --Famine 21:23, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That totally cool with me. There's this really awesome dark alley I know about. It's remote, keeps sound in well and perfect for meeting internet friends. --Metaphysical 15:29, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm northern california.
- P.P.S. This isn't a letter. What the hell am I doing?
Scally Madchester here (well Stockport now)--Elvis 15:44, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Humm...Methinks we'll be needing to indicate country as we talk location. ;) While Elvis is in the Old England, I'm in the New England, which, I might add, is a decent upgrade. We've got dentists here. I'm about 2 hrs from Albany, NY, USA, 3 hrs from Springfield, MA, 5 hrs from NYC and about 6 hrs from Boston. --Famine 17:20, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- You may be right... I live less than an hour from NYC. I also live less than 10 minutes from NYC. That might be because I live IN NYC. Hmm. and I go back to school in a month. whee. maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. --PantsMacKenzie 18:35, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia makes no guarantees that such an event will not be a sausagefest --Nytrospawn 21:56, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Damn, i was really looking forward to some BBQ. Can you at least guarentee shitty Kirkland burgers or something? --Metaphysical 23:08, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Chronarion is a new yorker. --Chronarion 22:44, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia makes no guarantees that such an event will not be a sausagefest --Nytrospawn 21:56, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'm on the Gulf coast until school starts, and then I'll be in southern California, so it's probably not happening for me. --Rcmurphy 00:29, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
A few sysops seem to have gone inactive. Should we unsysop people? Of course, the project's founders and their friends ought to stay as sysops just to continue the nepotistic tradition, but what about the others? Should we give them badges for having contributed to Uncyclopedia as sysops and unsysop them for going AWOL?
The reason, of course, is that people want to contact sysops when they need help/arbitration, and having many inactive sysops or sysops what no one knows on the admin list can be bad for stuff and the like. --stillwaters/Talk 10:25, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- How many are inactive? (go on name and shame them....--Elvis 12:23, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should leave them sysopped for now. Maybe we could put a notice on their user and talk pages informing people that they're currently inactive and to contact another sysop for assistance? --Rcmurphy 13:31, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Murphy here, make some sort of annotation that they're currently inactive, but don't remove them from the list. Reason being, we know them to be trustworthy, and if they do come back, it would be nice to have them around again without having to wait to be reinstated. I'd also like to do a headcount of who is actually active of the sysops. I know I am, even though I haven't had a chance to actually write an article recently. --PantsMacKenzie 18:58, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I fired up a template. Call it using {{Inactive_Sysop}} It will automagically fill in the user's name, if placed on the user's page. It looks like this: --Famine 22:31, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Please don't unsysop me! I check the site even when I don't contribute, and I can always help if needed. --Savethemooses 18:57, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I added the template to User:Gadgeophile, User:SilentConsole, User:Root, User:Machinecurse and User:Uvula Donor, none of whom have made significant edits in the past month and a half or longer. --Rcmurphy 01:51, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I always knew the admins here were pinko-commies. The picture proves it! --Famine 15:10, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
|RIP Village Dump/archive2
|May you Rest In Peace.
|This Admin has run down the curtain,
and joined the choir invisible.
Please do not disturb.
(Find another Admin to bother.)
Who Dunnit?
So, er, who stole our database this morning? It was gone for at least an hour or two, if not longer. I got some wacky DB error attempting to access all pages, as I'm hoping everyone else did. If not, I'm somehow special. Am I special? --Famine 14:09, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The same thing happened to me. No Uncyclopedia for an hour. I felt so alone. --Cap'n Ben 14:14, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
It was Colonel Whatshisface in the kitchen with a blowtorch --Nytrospawn 15:51, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually... I got really hungry this morning. I'm sorry. I ate the page. I'll try not to do it again, but it was reeeeeally yummy. Mmmm, Uncyclopedia --PantsMacKenzie 17:58, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That makes sense - after all, it is full of baloney... --Carlb 15:40, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Report a problem
The sidebar used to link to Wikicities:Report a problem, but interwiki links weren't working, so that redirected to Project:Report a problem. Which page would it now be best to link to? Most Wikicities link to the Central Wikicity "report a problem" page since it contains contact details etc, but I don't know if Uncyclopedia needs to do that since people can find their way to the Central Wikicity if they need to via the "hosted by" logo. Perhaps the sidebar should now just link to the Community Portal and/or Village Dump instead of having some problems here and some problems there. The link can be changed at MediaWiki:Problemreport-url. The link text can be changed or removed at MediaWiki:Problemreport. Angela 16:42, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'm personally liking the project:report a problem--Sophia 22:04, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- There is an argument for report a problem being for things that are broken (of a technical nature) that may require playing with code/SQL and here being for suggestions of new features or stuff, etc. or problems that an ordinary admin/user can fix given the appropriate amount of (dangerouse) knowledge--Elvis 09:14, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I messed this up royally. This guy Gyugy blanked and moved a bunch of pages, including the Community Portal. I tried to fix the moved pages by copying the contents from the pages they were moved to, but I forgot moving a page also moves its history, so just copying the contents back left me with the right current page, but no history. Then, because I'm a complete idiot, I moved the copied Community Portal contents BACK TO THE OTHER PAGE, thereby overriding the history (which was essentially the history of the Community Portal itself) of THAT page. I don't know how to restore the history of the Community Portal and its Talk page, or even if it can be done, and I don't want to mess with anything else in case I screw it up further. I apologize for hideously messing this thing up. I hope it can be fixed. --Rcmurphy 22:36, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Chronarion can fix it, he can fix anything. And also, Gyugy will be banned for 24 YEARS. --Nytrospawn 01:54, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- FUCK, I dont rememmber how to ban people. --Nytrospawn 01:56, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Just enter their name at Special:Blockip.
- Heh, I actually hit him with the 24-Year Ban Stick before I posted here the first time. --Rcmurphy 03:35, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- FUCK, I dont rememmber how to ban people. --Nytrospawn 01:56, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've moved some page histories around and everything is back where it should be as far as I can tell. What should have happened is this:
- Vandal moves X to Y
- Vandal edits X, meaning you can't just move Y back to X (which you could have done were X just a historyless redirect to Y)
- Admin deletes X since it's just a redirect and Vandal's one edit
- Y is moved back to X
- Admin deletes Y since it's just a redirect to X, and is probably a nonsense title.
It gets a little more complicated if someone has mistakenly made good edits to X or Y before the admin tries to fix things. In that case, you can try deleting and then selectively undeleting good revisions. Angela 02:57, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing things! I'll try to be more competent in the future. --Rcmurphy 03:35, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for making my morning. I can't tell you how hard reading this made me laugh...god damned priceless...I am glad that I'm not the only one who can take a bad situtiation and make it worse due to sheer incompetence. As for the "dunno how to ban people", Nytro - I have the page bookmarked for emergencies like that. ;)
- Apparently moves to a new page can't be rolled back; you get a "cannot roll back; no previous edit" notice. Really, it should have been a simple operation: if I had just deleted the Gyugied Community Portal and then moved the Nkj nkj nkjkjkj page (where the vandal had moved the Portal) back to Community Portal, it would have been fine. Since I forgot that a page's history is also moved when the page itself is moved, it escalated into a comedy of errors. This fiasco has been brought to you by --Rcmurphy 16:13, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- We'll be upgrading to MediaWiki 1.5 as soon as it's stable, and you will be able to roll back page moves then. Angela 16:47, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Execelent. If I recall correctly, that will take care of the "block-compressed revisions" bug as well, right? --Famine 21:57, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't realise the "block-compressed revisions" bug affected Uncyclopedia, but, yes, it should fix that. Angela 15:42, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- There's a rather long list of affected Uncyclopædia articles at Uncyclopedia:To Be Deleted, actually. --Carlb 15:44, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I was thinking about that list, and I'd say that it's (probably) not all that accurate - many of those articles could have been rewritten by now. My brainstorm was to just hit the "what links here" link, and delete everything that links there. That way we're just hitting things which still redirect to that page, and not going by what might well be outdated content.
- I just don't know how tricky it will be navigating to and deleting swathes of redirect pages. Is that potentially bot-work, or "everyone gets 20 to do" work? --Famine 02:14, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Unified chat
Perhaps we should move this whole thing into village dump? Makes no sense to check both places. --Sophia 16:52, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Technically, community portal should be links to all the special and maintenance pages. Thats the way wikipedia does it, anyway. --Paulgb Talk 20:21, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- If that's the case, why not whack all of the chat here, and protect the page? Leave the Discussion page here for "add/remove stuff from the portal" talk, and force everyone else to use the Uncyclopedia:Village Dump? I vote yea. --Famine 01:24, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I have moved everything into the dump. --Sophia 19:57, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't this already a featured image? What the hell, guys? Why can't you feature one of my brilliant MS Paint jobs instead? That's it, I'm featuring Kool Aid on the front page, I don't care if it only has two votes. Nyaah. --Savethemooses 00:47, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Algorithm rigged the featured image template to cycle (somewhat) randomly through the top images. --Rcmurphy 03:53, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys
These animal crackers are good... damn good... --Savethemooses 19:24, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- While you were gone we decided to become respectable. We're actually in direct competition with Wikipedia now. --Rcmurphy 19:34, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- We're also in the bid for the Olympics. The Special Olympics--Nytrospawn 22:46, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- What the hell? Respectable!?!?!?!!? I'm gonna have to go knock down some old ladies in protest. --Savethemooses 20:37, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- We're also in the bid for the Olympics. The Special Olympics--Nytrospawn 22:46, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to spoil the party, but we absorbed wikipedia about two months ago. They couldn't pay their hosting costs, and they were running short on members. We have been mulling over what alternate wikispace wikipedia should take here, and it looks like it will fall under wikispace F4. To move into wikipedia space, therefore hit alt (alternate space) and F4. --Famine 00:04, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
User banned for 24 years
Does that actually work? If so, thats one long ban. --Nytrospawn 21:46, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I think the SQL database will probably bomb a few times before the time is up. Generally not a good idea anyway. --stillwaters/Talk 22:24, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if that would be a Guiness record for longest internet ban?--Nytrospawn 03:19, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I've been wondering about our longish bans, as IP addresses are often only attached to a computer for a matter of days, it not hours. I'm somewhat concerned that bans longer than a week will end up potentially blocking people unassociated to the person who got the ban. Personally, I'd rather see us move to a "logged in to edit" mode instead of dish out all these month and longer bans. People could still read everything, but it will help cut down on the pointless adminning we have to do - reverts and bans - and let us spend more time adding content and making structural and content improvement changes. That or we need 2x as many admins.
- There is a lot of work that could be done around here, and I find myself splitting my time here between banning/reverting, deleting crap pages, fixing pages, adding to community discussion, and lastly adding content. If I could do less banning/reverting, I could do more of the rest. Now I could just quit banning/reverting, but as an admin, I know that all this stuff needs to be done, and I try to split my time between all of them. --Famine 14:29, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I was a little excited with the big red button that I hit it like, alot of times. It's a user ban, so not really a problem as with IP ban. Still, 24 years was slightly excessive, I agree. --Sophia 04:37, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well shit - nobody told me there was a big red button involved...carry on then. Luckily I haven't found it yet, or I'd have banned all the IPv6 addresses by now as well...Do we have a ((Category:Only Purpose for Existing was to be a Warning for Others)) yet? No? I'll go work on that... --Famine 00:07, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Whoa!!! Was that THE Sophia?! --Commander Jameson 19:23, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- No, our Sophia is actually a baked potato. Ask Chronarion. --Nytrospawn 21:39, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I AM ONLY HALF BAKED! 10 MINUTE BAN FOR YOU! --Sophia 16:48, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Well, excuuuuuuse me, princess zelda --Nytrospawn 23:07, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I made an initial stab at a warning template, and if anyone feels the need , please add it to long-term banees. I'm assuming we'd only want to slap it on registered users, as it might be a little confusing to anon-IPers. Enjoy! --Famine 00:46, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
| I was blocked from Uncyclopedia, and all I got was this lousy template!
Village Dump/archive2 has been blocked from Uncyclopedia for misconduct. May its sad fate serve as a warning to others.
Make Uncyclopedia better, not worse. Stop the cycle of violins.
Massive influx?
Is it just me, or did we suddenly get a large influx of people here? there have been something like 500 new articles in the past day, as well as 10k mainpage loads. If so, where did they all come from? --PantsMacKenzie 14:16, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- 10k loads? It says there have been 311k total. That's only eleven thousand more than on the 26th of June. --Rcmurphy 15:20, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I'm hallucinating. maybe it was 5k. I don't know. My head hurts. *sleep* --PantsMacKenzie 15:41, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it's partly that there has been somewhat less activity at the Latvia, Romania, Lithuania, etc. pages, and more directed towards new pages and such. --Rcmurphy 15:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- According to the webalizer stats there is a modest increase in traffic so far this month over June. Should this kind of discussion be on the talk page? --JWSchmidt 15:46, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Nah, I think the Community Portal is the right place for this kind of thing. --Rcmurphy 15:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I'm hallucinating. maybe it was 5k. I don't know. My head hurts. *sleep* --PantsMacKenzie 15:41, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Googlesque Main_Page
To think that I've spent the past three days trying to figure out what on earth "Goolesque" meant... --Rcmurphy 03:51, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Ha! I noticed that shortly after your first response, but decided to leave it because it amused me. Been making me laugh every time I checked in here. I was wondering if everyone either didn't notice, got it, or was too shy to ask. And now I no. And noing is half of parenting. --Famine 01:06, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I noticed it. But I thought I would look stupid if I said anything. It definately sounded like a real word --Nytrospawn 01:35, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've started to ponder the amount of amusement we might have in making up some "holiday-themed" front pages. By request, was used today to honor all the Americans who injure themselves blowing stuff up as a way to honor a bunch of terrorists who fought the British at the Battle of Waterloo.
I think making up Main_Pages for holidays (Worldwide, religion-wide) could allow us to tie in a lot of our existing material and highlight it in a cool way. Any major issues with this?
And if we do, how do we want to organize it? I briefly debated a ((category:Main_Page)), but that seems inelegant. Main_Page/July_4, Main_Page/November_9, etc? Done this way, we could make a quick calender page which showed the major dates we were working on. --Famine 00:32, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I definitely like the idea of having more holidayish front pages. However...remember the April 1 page ([1])? I liked it because it was a surprise. I figured someone would change it around for April Fool's Day but I had no idea what it would look like or what theme it would take. If possible I think that's how future theme front pages should take shape - discussed and formulated off-wiki, away from any prying eyes so that they remain surprises up to the day they're implemented. Or, we could just leave the pages up to individuals: we make out a list of holidays (or days that could be used as imaginary holidays), have someone claim each theme day and let them work on their own front page.
- If people think that's too elaborate or unnecessary, that's fine. I'd just like to try to preserve an element of surprise for readers.
- As for storing them, I think Main_Page/July_4 or Uncyclopedia:Main_Page/July_4 are good, and a category would be useful for listing them all on one page if for nothing else. --Rcmurphy 01:10, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, but I wonder how many crushed people there will be if multiple parties each spent hours labouring over a page in secret, only to have someone else beat them to the punch. I'm for setting them up ahead of time, and then let them develop as wikis do. It takes some of the drama out of them, but I personally need others to make my work shine. It's rarely great off the bat.
It's not hard to avoid Main_Page/August27 if you really don't want to have the War for Zanzibar day spoiled. It will allow everyone to contribute who wants to, and everyone else can just ignore that it's there. Also, for something as complicated as the front page (from a disgusting mix of wiki and html code standpoint) more eyes are better. I always get scared when I go into that code. Of course, that's just my 35 1/2 cents...
I was about to hit submit when I realized that there are about 8 different ways to accidently stumble across pages in development - recent changes, user contribs, and the random page function, irregardless of links. I see now what you're talking about. A user could be randoming along, and stumble across a page in development. I don't know if it spoils it or not. Perhaps we need a dev server? ;) --Famine 03:51, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Re: Dev Server, we could use Wikipedia do you think they would mind </clueless> --Elvis 08:47, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Dunno. I hear the sysops are dicks over there, and relentlessly revert and ban people. Even if all they did was rewrite the main page, with lies, damn lies, and Oscar Wilde quotes. We'd need to be numerically superior, methinks. --Famine 13:40, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose sacrifices will have to be made no matter how we do things. Such is life. Maybe we should just take it on a case-by-case basis.
- How about an International Blog Day, with the front page set up like a 13-year-old's Xanga page? Snerk. aNiMaTeD sPaRkLiNg StArS aNd EvErYtHiNg.--Rcmurphy 21:06, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. We shall do this! With VENGEANCE!! --PantsMacKenzie 21:10, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Uhh, Should we put the Main Page back the way it was? I mean, It's no longer the 4th. I"m kinda reluctant to change such a magnificent piece of satire, but it might be time. Murphy will probably take care of it eventually. ^_^ --PantsMacKenzie 13:50, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Lazy bums, all of you. --Rcmurphy 14:40, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a magnificant idea. The holidays should be in the spirit of uncyclopedia though (unpredicatble), like international masturbation day. It sorta promotes the idea that there's always something going on on uncyclopedia--TheLibrarian 12:40, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I also think we should intersperse fake and real holidays, and/or use the dates of some real holidays for parodies - e.g. Halloween could be Wicca Day or something. And we shouldn't be too enthusiastic about changing the front page - I think maybe two holidays a month should be the maximum. --Rcmurphy 20:30, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Only two? But what August and April? And what about Christmahanukwanza? Think of the children!!! --Famine 00:12, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- ~Thinks of the children~ ~goes off to get barbecue sauce~ --PantsMacKenzie 19:50, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Only two? But what August and April? And what about Christmahanukwanza? Think of the children!!! --Famine 00:12, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Long time contributor of mediocre material, first time dump discusser.
Anyways, for those of you who use Firefox, you're probably aware of the search plugin feature. Anyways, since I can search the utter nonsense of Wikipedia, I'd like to see a search plugin for Uncyclopedia so I can search entries like that.
Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to find out how to make one myself and it might give some geek here something to do.
And since "gimme gimme never gets," may I PLEASE have an Uncyclopedia search plug-in for Firefox? thnx!!!11111 --126.96.36.199 22:54, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Supposedly already exists (see http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=uncyclopedia&submitform=Find+search+plugins ) but can be created easily enough by using a copy of one of the other plugins as a starting point in any case...
I went into \program files\mozilla firefox\searchplugins and copied the two wikicities files (the wikicities.png logo and the .src text) to uncyclopedia.src and .png, editing the text of the copied file to change wikicities.com to uncyclopedia.wikia.com - they seem to work just fine (although you will need to close and restart your browser after doing the copy/edit on them)--Carlb 23:51, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC):
#---------------------------------------------------------------------# # Author: LouCypher: this uncyclopedia.src based on his original .src # # website: http://mozilla.wikicities.com/ # #---------------------------------------------------------------------# <search version="7.1" name="Uncyclopedia" description="Uncyclopedia" method="get" action="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Search" searchForm="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/" queryEncoding='UTF-8' queryCharset='UTF-8' > <input name="search" user > <input name="limit" value="10"> <input name="fulltext" value="Search"> <inputnext name="offset" factor="10"> <inputprev> <input name="sourceid" value="mozilla-search"> <interpret browserResultType='result' resultListStart='<h1 class="firstHeading">Search results</h1>' resultListEnd='<form id="powersearch"' resultItemStart='<li>' resultItemEnd='</li>' charset='UTF-8' > </search> <browser update="http://mycroft.mozdev.org/plugins/uncyclopedia.src" updateicon="http://mycroft.mozdev.org/plugins/uncyclopedia.png" updatecheckdays="3" >
I don't get why people don't just rightclick in the search box to their left (if they are currently on this page :p), choose add keyword and just fill in something like 'un'. Who needs a plugin when "un You have two cows" works perfectly. --King Nintendoid 14:58, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The What I Didn't Know about Romania series
So far, so good... I'm still trying to sort out and structure the rest of this into a categorised series of articles.
At the moment, main entries in Category:Romania's What I Didn't Know about Romania compilation series include:
- Romania
- Economy of Romania
- Geography of Romania and Oltenia
- People of Romania
- Politics of Romania
- What I Didn't Know about Romania
- Muie and Ţuică
- Vlad the Impala, legendary chariot of Dracula
This still leaves plenty of #REDIRECT's to update, as locations of individual items have changed repeatedly.
Should there be a template (like the existing {{USpades}}, {{Canada}} or the USpades parody {{UStates}} with *'s for spades) to replace the What I Didn't Know about Romania links and the banner?:
This article is part of the What I Didn't Know about Romania series.
Here it is:
All mentions of Moldova/Moldavia must mention "Dragostea Din Tei" by O-Zone, the only hit record ever to come from Moldova, also with the gayest video in existence where everyone dresses normally.Numanumanumayaye - David Gerard 12:50, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)


text:
Future Driving: Controlling a Car with a Wave of the Hand?
30 November 2012 - Wall Street Journal
Toyota Motor Co. is researching new ways to revolutionize the act of driving, and some start with a simple wave of the hand.
Jim Lentz, head of Toyota's U.S. division, said today the company is working on new hand motion technology that will allow drivers to control certain car functions, such as turning up the radio volume.
For now, the research is mostly being done on a skateboard — yes, a skateboard — developed by Toyota's "Board of Awesomeness" research team and in partnership with Microsoft Corp., Mr. Lentz said, speaking at the LA Auto Show this morning.
The electric skateboard runs on hand gestures. In raising and lowering the hand, a rider can control the throttle, making the board go faster or slower.
But that technology could have in-car applications, especially those that will help limit distracted driving by keeping a driver's eyes on the road, Mr. Lentz said.
"We believe the driver must always be engaged," he added. "It's really, really critical as auto manufacturers, all these new technologies that we put in cars will lead to less distracted driving."
Also, under development by Toyota, is a prototype called the Smart Insect that has on-board motion sensors. The car recognizes the owner's face and body and tries to predict behavior by analyzing the driver's movement. It also uses voice recognition to open doors and perform other functions.
Mr. Lentz described the Smart Insect as "our version of Herbie the Lovebug, but highly updated and tricked out."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I give you the end of a golden string,
Only wind it into a ball:
It will lead you in at Heavens gate,
Built in Jerusalem's wall.
William Blake, Jerusalem.
The Blake Society honours and celebrates William Blake (1757-1827), engraver, poet, painter & prophet. We bring together amateurs and professionals, enthusiasts and scholars on equal terms; and have been meeting regularly in London since 1985. Speakers include musicians, artists, writers, radicals, and mystics. Our members are to be found in many countries.
We look for opportunities to continue the work that Blake began: exploring new modes of expression, and awakening the artist and prophet in each individual. Our past projects and events have included curating and hosting audio and video recordings of several Blake texts; discovering the actual location of Blake's grave in Bunhill Fields and marking it with a ledger stone; and recreating Blake's river journey of 1780 (with a bit of help from the Royal Navy!) Each year, our Tithe Grant competition gives away one tenth of our annual income to an artist whose work transforms Blake's ideas for our age.
We always welcome new members, and subscribers to our free monthly email newsletter.
These pages contain information about our current projects and events programme, archives of past projects, and information about Blake himself.
The Blake Society is a Registered Charity, No 1106130.
The Society is run by an Executive Committee of Trustees and the current trustees are listed below. Trustees are elected to serve for a term of office of one year beginning at the Annual General Meeting. At the AGM on 29 January 2020 the following members of the Society were elected to serve as Trustees for the year and will hold office until the next AGM in Jan 2021:
Aysegul Cinar
Peter Dodd (Treasurer)
Sibylle Erle
Tim Heath (Chair)
Jonathan Mullard
John Riordan
If you have questions about membership, or the Society in general, you are most welcome to contact us:
The Blake Society
St James's Church
197 Piccadilly
London W1J 9LL
Tel: 079 106 73 114
To email the Society, please add one of the following prefixes in front of @blakesociety.org
for Membership enquiries
for Donations, Grants and Financial Enquiries
for Governance, Strategy or Beautiful enquiries
for the Editor of the Blake Journal (please note that we are presently reviewing the future of the journal)
for announcements or press releases that might be of interest to our members (for circulation via our e-bulletin and facebook page)
for submission of reviews for our website of films, concerts, lectures, books etc that celebrate Blake
for suggestions or proposals for future lectures, visits, speakers, topics, conferences or antinomian activities for the Blake Society (if you are organising your own event which may be of interest to our members, please email "news," not "events")
for impossible questions about William Blake (please first consult the resources in "About Blake" and staff at your school or university, if relevant, and bear in mind that impossible questions may take an impossible amount of time to answer)


text:
To view open suppliers, go to the main shopping page for all the punch out vendors, or go to the search window on a non-catalog form supplier profile. If they are not in eProcurement, contact Vendor Management at firstname.lastname@example.com. Purchasing will need the vendor set up before the department can begin a non-catalog Requisition. This process is quicker if the vendor sends their required documentation to email@example.com.
How can we help?
What vendors are available in eProcurement?
Did this solve your problem?
HR Human Resources Payroll [] Payment Services Bursar Immigration Purchasing Information Security Employment Travel Tax Compliance Parking OCA Benefits Auxiliary Compensation FMS Safety Interviews & Hiring Budget Applying for a Job FLSA Meetings room reservation Food H1-B Visa J-1 Visa AFR Dining & Vending Emergency Police Facilities HUB Residency Surplus Inventory Employee Tuition Assistance Events Liability non-exempt Emergency Management Security Engineering Box CometSpace One Card auxillary sick leave meal plan parking ticket pay-by-space Continuity Planning Institutional Equity new position Tobacco Tobacco-Free account reconciliation Encryption Job Changes & Audits Treasury Awareness complaint ISO Policy user account Duo e-plan Infosecurity NetID Plus Email Incident Response Mail Overtime work order Administration Copies E-3 Visa parking permit Prints Public Information salary Transportation Vendor Management Camps equipment insurance identity finder insurance B-1/B-2 Visa Bookstore & Tech Store controlled asset exempt meal money student union TN Visa enforcement file sharing IDT Mobile Devices notifications PRR form Relocation UBIT DART pass EOI Letters of Representation Office Information recycle student services building student union mall alcohol booth reservation campus construction comet cab customer service fire office key Patching phishing risk assessment form Scanning academic year annual enrollment campus emergency response team cert certificate of liability crime disability permit envelopes ferpa glb act identity theft lost and found online timesheet posters property theft report training ut dallas email visitor Visitor Passes acceptable use Adverse Security Event annual security report available jobs bereavement bicycle registry brochures catering census day comet cash compliance cprit door access educational discount fmla funeral leave General goals hazardous waste hipaa Incident Reponse internal candidates key terms letterhead lone star conference room LOR mcdermott library medical appeal merit increase net id password pci-dss people involved phases photography Plan plinth area police report Procurement secure socket layer Security Incident short-term visitor stamps strategy student employee text message University Data utd-id vacation vehicle assistance Vendor waste what to report who should get familiar will preparation worker's compensation zipcar


text:
УжБй МвНФ
ПРНУДТ Бц
ПЌБИПј ЧСЗЮБзЗЅ
БЙСІ ЦђШПЭ ОШКИ
ПЌБИ ГэЙЎ
Research Papers
ПЌБИ ГэЙЎ
HOME > Publications/E-Library >
ПмБГАќАш ШИРЧ: КИУїПіНК ДыЛчПЭРЧ ДыШ
File :
КЯЧб, ЧйПмБГ БзИЎАэ ЕПКЯОЦ СіПЊОШКИ
КЯЧб Чй РЇЧљ: СіГ 20Гт АЃРЧ СјШ АњСЄПЁ ДыЧб ЦђАЁ
ХфЗаРк: НКХзЦЧ КИУїПіНК (ХЭЧСЦЎ ДыЧа ЧУЗЙУФ Й§ПмБГДыЧаПј ИэПЙ ЧаРх, ЙЬБЙЙЋКЮ КЯЧб СЄУЅ ЦЏКА ДуДч), ЧбНТСж( АэЗСДы ИэПЙБГМі, Рќ ПмБГКЮ РхАќ) СјЧр: ИЎТїЕх КЮНУ(ЕПОЦНУОЦ СЄУЅ ПЌБИМОХЭ МвРх Ат МіМЎ ПЌБИПј), СИ НюХц (КъЗчХЗНК ПЌБИМв СпБЙ МОХЭ). 2014. 4. 24
North Korea, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Regional Security in Northeast Asia
The North Korean Nuclear Threat: Evaluating Its Twenty-Year Evolution
Speakers: Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean Emeritus, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Special Representative for North Korea Policy, U.S. Department of State, and Han Sung-Joo, Professor Emeritus, Korea University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea Presider: Richard C. Bush III, Director, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution April 24, 2014
BUSH: ... to chair this meeting today on the North Korea issue 20 years on. It was 20 years ago this spring that it was a really bad time to be a specialist on the Korean peninsula, because we were inching towards war with North Korea. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry writes in a book he did call ЁАPreventive Diplomacy,ЁБ that during that time, there was serious and intensive review and revision of our war plans, because North Korea seemed on the brink of breaking out of nuclear restraints.
North Korea was warning that it would turn Seoul into a sea of flames. And Secretary Perry writes, ЁАWe were on the brink of war that might involve the use of weapons of mass destruction.ЁБ
And itЁЏs a useful time to look back, to see where weЁЏve been, what the nature of the North Korean nuclear threat is today, and what we might do about it. To examine these issues, we have two outstanding specialists and practitioners; Steve Bosworth, who is at Harvard University, and Ambassador Han Sung-Joo is Professor Emeritus at Korea University.
Each of these gentlemen has served his country with distinction, both in government and in the academy. They have thought about these issues for a long, long time. And I think they will provide us an outstanding perspective.
You have their bios in front of you. And so I donЁЏt need to go through the details. I think youЁЏd rather listen to them than to me.
What weЁЏre going to do today is first, Ambassador Bosworth, Ambassador Han and I will have a little conversation about some framing issues. And then weЁЏll open it up for your contributions.
So to start off with, was there a point in this odyssey when the outcome we had today became inevitable? Or were there some inflection points where we could have achieved an outcome thatЁЏs much different and much better? Steve?
BOSWORTH: Well, first I would like to thank the council, and to thank you, Richard, for the opportunity to be here. I was just thinking to myself, you said 20 years ago. And it was 19 years ago, almost to the day, that I first met Dr. Han, who was then foreign minister, or recently-retired foreign minister. IЁЏm not quite sure which.
But I was in Korea with my good friend and colleague, Choi Young-Jin. And we were coming from the Korean Energy Development Organization in New York to take a sounding in Seoul as to where we might be going with that enterprise.
I think there have been a number of inflection points. This is not a Shakespearean tragedy destined to end in a certain way. I think at various points there was the opportunity – and I hope there will still be the opportunity – to gain some degree of control over what seems all too frequently to be a kind of inexorable descent.
I would point out that it has not always been as grim. From 1994 to 2002, we know that the North Koreans did not produce plutonium. Now, they were doing other things undoubtedly that we wouldnЁЏt have liked. But they did not produce plutonium. And they did not start new plutonium production facilities.
I also happen to think that in the year 2000 to 2001, there was an opportunity to, I think at least modestly, set a new direction in the relationship, and in North KoreaЁЏs course. And here, I fear that the U.S. domestic political time table got very much in the way. And that was the period from – the transition from President Clinton to President George W. Bush.
And even since 2001, there have been opportunities which, for various reasons, either because of our domestic politics, or our concerns about other events in the region, or because of North KoreanЁЏs own intransigence, we were not able to take advantage of those. But I donЁЏt think ItЁЏs Shakespearian in its ultimate course.
Sung-Joo, whatЁЏs your perspective on the question of inevitability?
HAN: Well, actually, IЁЏll let you on that Richard posed that question before we came here, and I thought about it. Of course, there are people who say we should have used more sticks or more carrots. But looking back, over the past 20 years, I think, if IЁЏm a little provocative here, there were two major occasions where we probably would have, and should have done things differently.
And one is back in 1992, when the IAEA found out that there was a discrepancy between the amount of plutonium that the North Koreans reported and the amount that the IAEA and the international community suspected that they had produced.
We insisted on whatЁЏs known as ЁАspecial inspection,ЁБ which put the North Koreans into a corner, and gave them the need, as well as the opportunity, to get out of the NPT system and the safeguard agreement that they subsequently signed. And that started the whole thing, which ended with the Geneva agreed framework.
Now, if we had not put the North Koreans to a corner, and continued with the inspection arrangements of the IAEA monitors and the cameras, and all that, it was not necessary to have the negotiation that led to the Geneva agreement. So in this case, in the interest of probing the past, we sacrificed the control of the present.
So I think we could have done differently. We probably should have done differently in this case. And when the time came for North Korea to get the main bulk of the light water reactors and ultimately dismantle their – all their nuclear facilities, then the opportunity came to the North Koreans with A.Q. Khan, and all, to develop uranium enrichment to a highly enriched uranium program.
Now, the second case I would mention is in 2002, when we had enough of a reason that they were getting into this uranium enrichment program. We – well, in this case, particularly the Bush Administration, pushed for scrutinizing or having North Korea admit that they have this program, and – which ultimately led to the dismantlement, not of the North Korean nuclear facilities, but of the Geneva Agreed Framework.
And in this case, it was sacrificing the present in favor of preventing the future prospect of North Korea engaging in the UEP. And so if we had kept the Geneva Agreed Framework, and dealt with the HEU issue in a different way, I think we most probably would have come out with a different outcome.
BUSH: Thank you very much. Thinking about the present now, I wonder if you could elaborate on what each of you thinks is the nature of North KoreaЁЏs threat today, nuclear and otherwise, and who is threatened? Is it South Korea, Japan, the United States, China, all of the above? Sung-Joo, do you want to talk about that a little bit?
HAN: I think itЁЏs actually everybody that is threatened, including North Korea itself, and China. If you put them in any rank order, I think the country, the party that is most threatened is South Korea. Not only by the prospect of North Korea actually using the nuclear weapons, but also because what it does to the opportunities for North Korea to engage in provocative actions, the possibility of accidents, especially because much of this program is secret, and thereЁЏs no opportunity to ensure nuclear security or safety with the program and facilities, what it does to the military balance in general, or what it does to the possibility of a military conflict, and so on.
Next to South Korea, I think it is North Korea. And then comes Japan, because of the proximity, because of the presence of the U.S. military personnel and facilities there, and China itself, with the proximity; not only with the weaponsЁЏ capability, but also the fallout that might come from whatever might happen in North Korea with its nuclear facilities.
And then in medium to long term the United States, of course. And so probably Russia is the country which is I think also threatened, but not – probably the least so, among the six parties. But everybody is threatened.
BUSH: Steve, do you want to amplify on that?
BOSWORTH: Well, I agree very much with what Sung-Joo just said. I think the threat is such that we all share in the threat. To be more – to elaborate just briefly on that, I think what possession of a credible nuclear-weapons program gives North Korea is an even greater ability, capacity than they now have to act with impunity, vis-à-vis South Korea, vis-à-vis the U.S.
The things that they have done over the last 40 years, for which, in most cases, weЁЏve found a way to, I wouldnЁЏt say punish, but at least make that not cost-free. If they have a credible nuclear-weapons program – and I am persuaded they do – I think that changes the balance in Northeast Asia in a very alarming way.
The other casualty of course is the global non-proliferation regime, which for the United States in particular, has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy for half a century or more, and which has been, if you look at whatЁЏs happened over that period of time, remarkably successful. ThereЁЏs leakage, and things happen that we would wish didnЁЏt happen, but nuclear weapons have not become sort of the household acquisition of very many countries in the world.
And I fear that North KoreaЁЏs example is not a constructive one in that regard. I am somewhat puzzled and bemused by the fact that in U.S. foreign policy, and in the foreign policies of most of our partners and friends, the prospect that Iran might acquire nuclear weapons has become sort of the number-one alarm – fire alarm in the world. Whereas, North Korea, we know has nuclear weapons.
And we kind of proceed, I wouldnЁЏt say with indifference. We express a lot of outrage about it. But we donЁЏt seem to do much. So I find that bemusing, to say the least.
BUSH: I wonder if thereЁЏs another casualty here, and thatЁЏs the U.S. policy of extended deterrence, vis-à-vis Japan and Korea if North Korea has a proven ability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons.
BOSWORTH: Well, of course, the Soviet Union had the same ability during the Cold War. And we managed to find a way to make extended deterrence credible. I believe we could make extended deterrence credible in the case of Northeast Asia if we had to. And we may have to, given whatЁЏs been going on.
I do worry about the pressures on other countries in the region, as I know the Chinese worry about that, that if North Korea goes nuclear, and seems to be getting away with it, so to speak, internal political debates in, say, Japan, and conceivably in some future existence in South Korea, could change in a way in which the possible option to go nuclear would no longer be as unthinkable as it is now.
So I think it does change that potential tone of that discussion.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, you want to comment on this, what South Korea might do if it was clear that North Korea could hit the United States, and therefore, perhaps call our commitment to South Korea into question?
HAN: Well, I donЁЏt really think that the commitment or idea of extended deterrence, especially vis-à-vis Japan, but also vis-à-vis South Korea, would be very much affected by North KoreaЁЏs ability to hit the United States.
Even with the capability, the U.S. is much more defensible, than either Japan or South Korea, from the North Korean nuclear attack, partly because of the technical capability, technological capability, and the distance involved. And so I donЁЏt think itЁЏs simply a wishful thinking that that would be the case.
Clearly, thereЁЏll be a debate in South Korea as to what we should do under those circumstances if thereЁЏs the slightest sign of the United States weakening its commitment. But I donЁЏt think it will ever come to a point where South Korea will actually decide that they will have to do something by way of nuclear route.
BUSH: Thank you. So we have a situation that is somewhat dangerous, highly frustrating, because we havenЁЏt been able to take advantage of the opportunities, puzzling, as Steve said, and bemusing. So what do we do about it?
Is there any chance that at this late date, we could actually get a mutually-acceptable negotiated solution? Does the United States and Japan and South Korea just have to accommodate to an emerging reality? Or should we think about some kind of containment? Steve?
BOSWORTH: Well, I think we are containing at the moment. If you look at our basic options, none of them are very encouraging or attractive. As you suggest, there is the option, which we may be moving toward, simply accepting North Korea as a nuclear-weapon state, de facto, if not de jure, and we never formally declare that.
But if they have nuclear weapons, and weЁЏre not doing anything about it, it seems to me that thatЁЏs something you canЁЏt just rule out. You find some people who talk about the need for either regime change in North Korea, or a forceful military response.
If I could figure out some way to make that happen, without putting 25 million South Koreans in grave danger, I would be all for it. But IЁЏve not been able to come up with that. So I think on any political or moral basis, the notion that somehow thereЁЏs a military response here, is just not right.
There is a school of thought in the United States, and I know elsewhere, which argues that China should just take care of this problem. This is – theyЁЏre North KoreaЁЏs ally, and North KoreaЁЏs very dependent upon them for certain material benefits. So why donЁЏt they just do something about it?
And in part, thatЁЏs sort of where the U.S. has been over the last couple of administrations, having spent more late nights than I want to recount, talking to senior Chinese officials about this. I donЁЏt have a high level of confidence theyЁЏre going to do that.
Their dilemmaЁЏs even worse than ours, because they donЁЏt – definitely do not want China to become a nuclear-weapon state...
BUSH: North Korea.
BOSWORTH: ... or North Korea to become a nuclear-weapon state. China, we canЁЏt do much about.
But on the other hand, they donЁЏt want North Korea to collapse. They donЁЏt want to have to deal with a unified Korean Peninsula, which they assume would be under South Korean sway, if you will, with a military relationship with the United States. ThatЁЏs, from their point of view, is a decidedly negative change in the so-called correlation of forces. And they donЁЏt see a lot of middle ground between them.
What they end up doing is advocating that the U.S. and other countries engage with North Korea. Now we tried to do that. We tried to do that many times. And I – again, having worked through all of the possible alternatives to it, I think we have, in the end, no choice but to try it again.
You find some people who talk about the need for either regime change in North Korea, or a forceful military response. If I could figure out some way to make that happen, without putting 25 million South Koreans in grave danger, I would be all for it. But IЁЏve not been able to come up with that.ЁБ
And I think, while weЁЏre unlikely, to say the least, to get North Korea to unilaterally capitulate on its nuclear weapons program before we sit down to talk to them about it – which is the view of some Americans – I do think that as in the so-called Leap Day Agreement, which for reasons I still donЁЏt completely understand, fell apart quickly, I think there is the opportunity to at least slow down the North Korean nuclear program through freezes on testing, freezes on other things, including the production of plutonium, and conceivably, something in the area of uranium enrichment.
Those are very tough things to bring about. But I sort of am of the view that there are three things that are fundamental to us in dealing with North Korea as it is, not as we would like it to be, but as it is.
And this is not original with me. Sig Hecker and other people have argued this, that we should be – we should be working toward North Korea not having any more nukes, and North Korea not having any better nukes, and doing something about our concerns about North Korean export of nuclear material, the so-called Three NoЁЏs.
And I think that is difficult to achieve, but not impossible. And that is, for me, a place to start. And then you move on over that, after that. And getting them to agree to give up their nuclear-weapons program, I donЁЏt see happening in the near or medium term. And in the long term, who knows.
And as people have said, if you donЁЏt try, you never will succeed. But I advocate that only because I donЁЏt see any more attractive alternative.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, do you disagree?
HAN: No, I donЁЏt disagree at all. IЁЏm going to respond to your...
BUSH: Please. No, yes, please.
HAN: ... question.
BUSH: That was a way of asking you to respond to my question.
HAN: This is really a good opportunity to look ahead by looking back, which is the title of one of the sections in the book, ЁАGoing Critical,ЁБ actually. Obviously, I donЁЏt have any magic bullet to solve the North Korean nuclear problem.
But if I can dwell in some generalities, I think I can offer some principles or guidelines in our policymaking. And I came up with six, seven of them.
And here it goes. One, we should not sacrifice the present for the sake of the past, or the future as I mentioned earlier. Secondly, I think pragmatic and strategic goals are more important than principles or ideologies. And in both cases of 1992 and 2002, those who pursued or pushed North Korea very hard were more in favor of principles than the practical results at that time.
Even now, those people who are opposed to adjusting this precondition of concrete actions by North Korea before coming to the six-party talks, they say weЁЏre sending them the wrong message, itЁЏs against our principles, and so on. I think that is something that may not be a very productive way of doing things.
Third, I think if weЁЏre not going to get a surrender document, which we cannot at this point, give and take is very important. And so, as in the case of the Geneva Accord, I think itЁЏs important to give them the stake, to implement an agreement when itЁЏs signed, or even to sign the agreement.
It is important to integrate both carrots and sticks, and of course, to use them. And to specifically answer your question, I think negotiated arrangement is better than other options, including sanctions.
And six, I would say half a loaf is certainly better than no loaf at all. So, I mean, even as you go ultimately for CVID, in order to get there, you have to settle for some less-than-perfectly satisfactory goals.
And finally, we have to always remember that in order to reverse your course, you have to stop at some point. When you drive an automobile, you canЁЏt suddenly go back – backward. So it is important that we seek to stop the increase in North Korean nuclear arsenal, nuclear capabilities, before actually reducing and dismantling them.
BUSH: Thank you both for your insights and your wisdom. The floor is now open. I should have said before that this is an on-the-record session. So none of the usual constraints are present.
BOSWORTH: Other than our inability to articulate.
BUSH: Couple of guidelines. Once I call on you, please wait for the mike. Identify yourself and your institution, and then please keep your question concise.
OK, I see a question back there, center right.
ЁАI think pragmatic and strategic goals are more important than principles or ideologies.ЁБ
—Han Sung-Joo
QUESTION: Michael Krapon, the Stimson Center. Could you both give us your assessment of North KoreaЁЏs new leader and the stability of his regime?
BOSWORTH: HeЁЏs your neighbor, Sung-Joo.
HAN: Well, there are basically two assessments. One is that – did you say North Korea or the leader? The leader, Kim Jong-un, is his own man. He is in fairly good control. There are others who think that he exhibits more vulnerability and weakness than control and power.
And naturally, I would go somewhere in between, probably on the side of more to his vulnerability and weakness, and the fact that he might be more acting and – acting in several meenings, acting his role to the tune decided by others. But he is on the way to become his own person.
And initially, the execution of his uncle-in-law is an indication of his – more – his sense of insecurity and his weakness than his strength. But that might contribute to consolidating his power ultimately.
BUSH: Steve, any additions?
BOSWORTH: Not too much. I think one of the disadvantages of not having virtually any contact with the North Koreans at all is that we know very little about how they are being run at present. I think there is always a tendency, in the U.S. in particular, but outside North Korea generally, to assume that somehow this one person is the decision-maker in the North Korean structure.
I have never been convinced that all of these senior generals and party officials, and others, with deep personal stakes in the continuity of the regime, are going to give all authority to a 30-year-old person with virtually no real-world experience.
So I tend to think that there is a more collective form of decision-making in North Korea about which, quite frankly, we seem to know very little. And I think as time goes on, we will see perhaps more coherence.
I think the execution was not a sign of either weakness nor strength on the part of Kim Jong-un. I think it was a sign that there were people within the upper reaches of the regime who didnЁЏt like Jang Song Thaek, and thought he was taking too much of the cream off the milk. And that in the end is what undid him.
But I have no real way of knowing. And IЁЏm always, again, bemused by people who can tell me with great certainty what North Korea is doing and why, because I donЁЏt think we really know very much, and never have.
BUSH: OK, next. Right here.
QUESTION: Thank you. Mike Billington. IЁЏm with the Executive Intelligence Review, Lyndon LaRouche.
YouЁЏve both mentioned the importance of carrots, and of course, the general framework had very strong carrots with the nuclear plant, and food, and potentially the rail development. And there is such an approach going on now between South Korea, and Russia, and China.
In fact, Park Geun-hye sent the head of Korea Rail up to the North while ObamaЁЏs coming to discuss with Russia, and potentially with China also, building rail connections. Potentially the oil connections would be with that. And yet, Obama and the neoconservatives here seem to have no interest in such an engagement, as you called it, at that level.
BUSH: Is there a question, Mike?
QUESTION: Yes, well, thatЁЏs it. I mean, there seems to be nothing like that coming from the United States. DonЁЏt we need the U.S. to be engaged in this process of discussing the rail and other development thatЁЏs already taking place?
BOSWORTH: Maybe not. I mean, IЁЏve thought for a long time that one of the many keys to this situation is a consensus position in South Korea as to how they would like to see it turn out. And, frankly, the divisions within the South Korean polity have always been, as they have been within the American polity, a major obstacle to effective action, vis-à-vis North Korea.
So if this is ultimately designed to produce a new form of engagement, in this case, economic engagement, I would think we have no objection to that. But I may be mistaken.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, do you have any comment?
HAN: Well, itЁЏs just – wrote an article in Korea on the occasion of President Obama's visit to Korea. And I was suggesting that the U.S. actually consider adjusting or modifying the precondition for six-party talks. ThereЁЏs no guarantee, of course, that six-party talks would solve the problem in any fundamental way. But it certainly would be better, and a good start to resume it.
And so I donЁЏt know about any big formula or initiative. But the Obama Administration, President Obama, started out with the very forward taking posture, and then decided – right now on a very stiff mood. And I think it has to be relaxed somewhat.
BUSH: OK. Over here.
QUESTION: Tom Davis with the Spectrum Group. Ambassador Bosworth, I would have to put myself among those Americans that you described as kind of having the general feeling, ЁАWhy donЁЏt the Chinese just fix this,ЁБ I think as you put it.
But would you elaborate a little bit more on what the calculation that you perceive they go through is? It just kind of seems from the American prism that they would be better off with a major trading partner, unified South Korea, than they would with a potentially enormously troublesome nuclear-armed and unpredictable North Korea.
BOSWORTH: Sure. I guess I become more and more reluctant with the advance of age to try to explain to other countries what their national interests really are. I think this is particularly true in the case of China. I donЁЏt know China at all well enough to be able to tell Chinese, who have spent their lives deciding what their national interests are, how they should behave vis-à-vis North Korea.
I can point out to them the advantages and disadvantages of various courses of action. But in the end, only they can make that decision. And I think they simply, on their periphery, they have many, many countries on their periphery. And they donЁЏt like to see change in any case, and particularly, not change on the Korean Peninsula.
So I donЁЏt know if this is ever going to be reassessed, or what they might do. But my strong judgment at the moment is that they may apply a little bit more pressure on North Korea here, and a little bit more there. And they may certainly want to give us the impression that they, in the interest of a better relationship with the U.S. in regional harmony, are prepared to do a lot of stuff.
But so far, I havenЁЏt seen much evidence that there is much follow-through to that. So they – as I said, they donЁЏt like the decision theyЁЏre faced with; a nuclear-weapons state on the one hand, or a unified Korea on the other.
And theyЁЏre looking for some middle ground. And so far, theyЁЏve not been able to find one which meets the ultimate objective of causing North Korea to give up its nuclear-weapons state.
BUSH: Scott Herald right here?
QUESTION: Thank you, Richard. Scott Herald of the Rand Corporation. Ambassador Han and Ambassador Bosworth, I wonder if you could put the North Korean nuclear issue in the broader context of security threats that North Korea poses to its neighbors in the region, including its chemical and biological weapons programs, including its cyber and unmanned systems programs, and its conventional strike capabilities.
There are other areas that North Korea poses risks and challenges, and the nuclear one obviously gets the most attention. But are there any prospects for enhancing our engagement with North Korea in other domains? For example, in the aftermath of the Syrian use of chemical weapons, we managed to get some forward progress there.
Is there any prospect for using that to begin a relationship with North Korea in a different domain, or to put pressure on them to come forward and make progress in some other area?
HAN: Well, clearly, thereЁЏs a need to address these other issues, not only chemical, biological weapons, but missiles as well. But at the same time, I donЁЏt think itЁЏs advisable to mix the nuclear issue with these other issues. It will only make the issue more complicated and difficult beyond the one we have, which is already very much complicated.
And so the other issues are very important, and have serious security implications. But we have to deal with them separately.
BOSWORTH: I very much agree with that. I would simply come back to something I at least indicated earlier. And that is all these other things are important, and we should be trying, along with our partners in the region, to deal with them, but to deal with them vis-à-vis a nuclear-weapons state, North Korea, is much more difficult than dealing with them without North Korea having nuclear weapons. It raises the level, makes it that much more complicated.
BUSH: Saw a hand over here. Yes, Scott Snyder.
QUESTION: Scott Snyder. IЁЏm here at the Council on Foreign Relations. As you all know, in the last couple of weeks, the North Koreans have threatened to conduct a new form of nuclear tests. And earlier this week, the South Korean foreign minister said a fourth North Korean nuclear test would be a game-changer.
I recall last year in the context of post-third North Korean nuclear test, in a moment of frankness, Susan Rice said that weЁЏre going to go through the usual drill at the U.N. Which one will it be this time after a fourth nuclear test? Do you think that the international community will treat it as a game-changer, or do you think weЁЏll be going through the usual drill?
BOSWORTH: Well, everybodyЁЏs quiet. I – first of all, I donЁЏt know if thereЁЏs going to be a fourth nuclear test or not. I would suspect, yes, at some point. When, I have no idea. Maybe next week, maybe next year. I donЁЏt know.
My inclination would be to say itЁЏll be the usual drill, because I donЁЏt sense that anyone has made the sort of strategic decisions that would be required to do anything other than the usual drill in response to a North Korean nuclear test.
HAN: North Koreans have the habit of bluffing and blustering, but at the same time, they usually do what they announce that they would do, maybe not exactly in the same way that they project, but they will. So we donЁЏt know when it will be, but they will probably follow through on that warning that they gave already.
There are, of course, speculations. And from their own point of view, there are pluses and minuses of what they would do, partly in their relations with China. So somebody in North Korea, or some group, is thinking about the strategic and tactical implications of whatever they do. And they obviously have some kind of a roadmap which theyЁЏre going to follow through.
So – but the problem is that short of complete turnaround by China, even though China is gradually inching toward putting more pressure on North Korea, I think a reaction at the U.N. or other collective reaction, collective or individual reaction, would not be much more than the usual drill, not that we have other options.
Let me just make one comment about the test. We put – place enormous importance to the fact of testing. We think as if it is by testing, North Korea comes to have this big nuclear weapon they did not have before, or something. But that tends to mislead ourselves to think that by preventing them from the fourth test, we have achieved a great deal to check their nuclear development. And I think thereЁЏs a danger in putting too much emphasis on it.
BUSH: To follow up on the question of game-changer versus sort of same-old-drill, is there perhaps a perverse value in North KoreaЁЏs testing either missiles or nuclear devices, in that it sort of leads China step by step to conclude that their strategyЁЏs not working, that the North Koreans are playing them, and they need to consider some other approach, one that sort of punishes North Korea more than itЁЏs already done so, and does so in a more significant way?
BOSWORTH: Maybe. I donЁЏt see much evidence that weЁЏve concluded that we in the U.S. – because we continue to warn against the test. If we wholeheartedly endorse that in the interest of open diplomacy, we should be urging them on, more tests.
BUSH: Jessica Mathews?
QUESTION: Thank you. Jessica Mathews, Carnegie Endowment. Sometimes bargaining chips, if they never get spent, presumably have very little value. Has there ever been a time in your opinions when it would have made sense for the United States to say, ЁАYes, the war is over,ЁБ or is there such a time in the foreseeable future?
BOSWORTH: Is that for... either or both of us...
My own personal view is that at some point, if we can reach – where sort of the point we were at in 2005 with the joint statement that came out of the early workings of the six-party talks, that yes, we should say, ЁАWe donЁЏt want you to have nuclear weapons, and youЁЏve sort of agreed that you wonЁЏt have.ЁБ
We need a peace regime to replace the armistice. Yes, letЁЏs work on that. We need diplomatic relations between all countries concerned. And some countries need energy and economic assistance. So letЁЏs work on that agenda.
WeЁЏve never been able to work out the problem of sequencing. I donЁЏt know many people in the U.S. who would argue that we shouldnЁЏt move toward an end of the war, which has now been going on for more than half a century.
But when to do that is a big question. And how do you sequence that with meaningful North Korean commitments on denuclearization? And the six-party talks really broke down, in my judgment, over the inability of the participants to come up with a sequence of actions and events that all parties would agree to.
Clearly, the North Koreans want to move denuclearization to the back of the train. We want to make it the leading issue on the train. And this is not without some possibility of compromise on all sides.
But I continue to think that youЁЏre not going to reach – weЁЏre not going to reach a compromise on any of those issues if weЁЏre not talking to them. And I think we have to talk to them.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) So my question assumed or suggested ЁАgive without get,ЁБ in the hopes of changing a now pretty-well broken process.
BOSWORTH: Well, ЁАgive without get,ЁБ at the same time, I mean, physical capabilities in North Korea being what they are, they can barely carry on negotiations on one set of these issues, much less all of them simultaneously. IЁЏm not sure the U.S. is any better off, quite frankly.
So you have to have some agreement on when you give and when you get. And I think, yes, within reasonable bounds, itЁЏs probably in our long-term interest to give something more – in the shorter term, and get something a little later on.
This is the dilemma that Kim Dae-jung worked his way through when he was trying to engage with the North Koreans, and came up with this formulation of ЁАgive before getting,ЁБ in effect, and do the easy stuff first, and push the hard stuff off until the end. Well, South Korean politics being what it was, that didnЁЏt prove to be sustainable in the longer term. And we have the same dilemmas.
BUSH: Sung-Joo, any comments?
HAN: I think this unilateral concession, so to speak, ЁАgive,ЁБ would make sense if there is a willingness on both sides to give and take ultimately.
And if that – if they cannot engage on negotiated settlement, negotiated give and take, because of the lack of trust or lack of habit of doing that, in this case, I donЁЏt think that this is the case as it was previously between the United States and the Soviet Union. I think there was some willingness to mutually give and take, mostly in the form of reducing their nuclear weapons, for example.
But in this particular sense, North Koreans feel that they need nuclear weapons, that they want to use all kinds of excuses and opportunities to keep doing that. And so unfortunately, unilateral concession, or ЁАgive,ЁБ will not be reciprocated. And so that is a formula that we have to think about very carefully.
BOSWORTH: Just to add one thing to my answer to JessicaЁЏs very sensible and insightful question. I continue – I believe strongly that by focusing as exclusively on the nuclear issue as we are now, weЁЏre ignoring, as has been suggested by Sung-Joo and others, weЁЏre ignoring long-term considerations that are of great importance.
I come back to the question that was raised about railways between South Korea, North Korea, Russia, et cetera. And there was an allusion in there to the flow of natural gas, perhaps, along the Korean Peninsula.
My view is that in the longer term, starting now, the best way to deal with North Korea is not to focus just on their nuclear capability, although that is obviously a grave concern, but to focus on what I think is the underlying problem of great seriousness, which is the inherent weakness of North Korea. And as long as they are as weak as they are, and perceive that theyЁЏre as weak as they are, in their calculus, the only way of dealing with that is to be able to pose a threat to the other countries in the region.
And my answer to that would be, all right, letЁЏs tie them in to a meaningful network of regional economic engagements. And energy – given my experience on the Korean Peninsula organization, and dealing with our efforts to build nuclear plants there, energy is probably the most pressing economic need that the North Koreans face.
And if you could tie them in through their own self-interest into a network of involving the flow of natural gas down from Russia into the Korean Peninsula, I think the benefits from that in the medium and longer term could be quite substantial, because it would give them a stake in stability. And now they really donЁЏt have a stake in stability. They get most when they just threaten to raise the roof.
BUSH: Jonathan Pollock?
QUESTION: Yes, Jonathan Pollock from Brookings. This is directed primarily at Sung-Joo, but either can address it. I think SteveЁЏs last comments about trying to think about North KoreaЁЏs future in a wider context are very, very relevant.
In this aspect, Sung-Joo, IЁЏd be very interested in your thoughts about the very dynamic quality now of the China–ROK relationship. After all, Madam Park has had a state visit to Beijing after her visit to the United States. Kim Jong-un has not made any travel plans of which we are aware.
China now does in excess of $250 billion a year in trade with your country, which is about more than 40 times that that they do with North Korea. The trends over time are even more in those directions.
Beyond this, the fact that the Chinese, in my judgment at least, by dint of what they have not done, have in some sense distanced themselves, in some measure politically from North Korea. The fact that the international department of the party, which used to have the primary responsibility here, does not anymore.
The only visitors from China to North Korea that we are aware of over a period of time now have been foreign ministry officials, and with all due respect to diplomats. ItЁЏs not the most...
BOSWORTH: We agree.
QUESTION: Yes, right. So my question – and I see Richard waving his hands – is there some other story? Is there a different dynamic here, particularly as we looked about how China weighs its longer-term interests in Korea vis-à-vis both Pyongyang and Seoul?
HAN: I think the Chinese are talking among themselves. TheyЁЏre thinking about this issue. And as you know, theyЁЏre allowing meetings, for example, in Beijing, to talk about the future of Asia in a euphemistic way.
And so both in the person of Xi Jinping, and within the leadership, there is a soul-searching of what to do with North Korea, as opposed to until now, when China always had the clear thought of keeping North Korea afloat beyond all other issues.
And so we have a little bit of opening there. In that regard, this evolving relationship between South Korea and China is a positive thing for everybody, not only South Korea itself, but including the United States as well.
BOSWORTH: Not really anything to add to what I said earlier, no.
BUSH: OK. We have time for one more brief question. Right over here.
QUESTION: Lloyd Hankegon Spalding. Picking up Ambassador BosworthЁЏs comment earlier about North Korea being in fact a de facto nuclear state, have we developed an arrangement with them as a pragmatic matter, as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, to guard against false launches?
BOSWORTH: It would be some magical solution if we had, because IЁЏm not aware. We donЁЏt talk to them.
BUSH: It does raise an interesting question – have the Chinese talked to them about it?
BOSWORTH: Well, one would hope, but...
BUSH: I think weЁЏve come to the end of our time. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you for your questions. Please join me in thanking Steve Bosworth and Han Sung-Joo.
Family Site ---------
#504 Hannam Officetel, 6 Hannam-daro 36-gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 04417 TEL:794-4199 FAX:798-4199


text:
About Growlanser: Heritage of War
On an island continent shrouded in darkness and bounded on every shore by an impassable veil, war rages among desperate inhabitants fighting for survival. A mysterious famine has ravaged the land, leaving its denizens to struggle over what little fertile land remains. There is no safe haven; land that war has left untouched is still threatened by the Screapers, fierce and powerful monsters steadily encroaching on the cities of men. Hope is fading - who will rise to save this dying land?
Key Features


text:
QuickTime and beyond
QuickTime is a powerful, reliable, and flexible foundation for the most cutting-edge multimedia experiences. But that's just the beginning. With QuickTime 7 Pro, third-party plug-ins, and QuickTime streaming solutions, you can take your digital media even further.
QuickTime 7 Pro. The multimedia master.
QuickTime 7 Pro can convert your media to different formats, so you can watch a video on your iPhone, iPod, and Apple TV. You can also use QuickTime 7 Pro to record video and share everything you make with friends and family.*
Convert your media.
Want to watch your home movies in the living room or on the go? QuickTime 7 Pro converts your files to a format optimized for iPhone, iPod, Apple TV, or a variety of other devices.
Record and edit your work.
With QuickTime 7 Pro, you can record audio and video directly from your built-in iSight camera, FireWire camcorder, or microphone.* You can even trim what you've recorded to the ideal length.
Learn everything you need to know about QuickTime 7.
Download the QuickTime User Guide


text:
Necessity, so they say, is the mother of invention—and if you need a tank but don't have one to hand, it's time to get creative. Like these Syrian rebels, who threw together this tank after a trip to a junk yard.
Called the Sham Il, it's built around an old car chassis but has some new—if unattractive—armored bodywork, along with a machine gun turret. No windows, obviously, so instead there are external cameras which route footage to an LCD, so the driver can see what's going on outside.
Perhaps the best part, though, is that the machine gun is aimed and fired using what looks like a PlayStation controller. No, really. [YouTube via Verge]


text:
All prices are in New Zealand dollars. Proud Scum is not registered for GST, there is no GST on these items. Payment is only by Palpal.
If you don't have a Paypal account you can pay by credit card at checkout.
We will post your purchase as soon as possible and will advise when items have been posted.
We can provide tracking numbers if required but we are not responsible for items lost in the post.
Please allow two weeks or more for t-shirts to arrive. At the time they are listed as available they have been ordered and are being printed.
If you're ordering from the US or Europe, please bear in mind that the items are coming from New Zealand, which is on the other side of the planet.
If any items are faulty, they can be returned for a refund, or replacement, within 14 days of receipt. We will not refund postage costs.
But if any items appear to be slightly different from what you expected, or you've changed your mind, we can't help you. That's the nature of buying off the net.
These items are not available in shops.
Trusting you'll enjoy your Proud Scum merchandise.


text:
natty_dread wrote:The point of this tutorial has never even been to show the "most efficient" methods for things. The tutorial's purpose is to show a new, inexperienced mapmaker the basics, things he will need so he can then learn more efficient methods by himself. No tutorial can ever teach 100% of things you need to know to make maps.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users